I've had plenty of people ask me questions over the years, so if you
are offended, you are the first to say so. Some have disagreed with my
interpretation of the evidence, but they have never cited strong
evidence for some alternative hypothesis, and as I've said over and
over, I am not the first person to say what I say here. Instead, this
has all been said before, by scientists, some of them Nobel Prize
winners.
As to Kam's statement that canola oil is "best," I would have to
disagree in the strongest possible terms. I've cited the piglet study,
in which piglets fed canola oil had a drastic drop in vitamin E, even
with supplementation and compared to soybean oil, which isn't very good
either, but turns out to be considerably better than canola. Canola
oil is the one oil that seems dangerous in every way (along with the
orginal oil, called rapeseed), and I'm not just talking science. That
is, many "experts" are touting canola because it is a "monounsaturated
fat," even though it is nearly 40% PUFAs. And so when I go to the
local "health food store," nearly everything's got canola in it.
My point here is that if you've seen the evidence, as I have, and you
realize the oxidative stress hypotheses are the strongest, then canola
oil should be called a "high oxidative stress inducing" oil, and be
classified as one of the worst things you can consume. Calling it a
"monunsaturated fat" means nothing. Even the epidemiological studies
(statistical) that are used to support this ridiculous classification
system make the assumptions that they are meant to prove, and so are
usually worse than useless, because they are so misleading. If anyone
posts one of these kinds of studies (or an abstract of it), I'll be
happy to examine it and explain exactly what is wrong with it. I just
did that for someone with a "trans fatty acid is bad" type of study on
another newsgroup (I've done that here a few times over the years as
well).
In fact, in my 1694 page copy of Shils' and Young's "Modern Nutrition
in Health and Disease," they review the evidence against "trans fat"
and dismiss it, suggesting, essentially, that there is no evidence
against it. My point is that the food products that are considered
"high trans fat" are unhealthy in ways that have been demonstrated
already, and fit into a reasonable hypothesis. When you look at recent
epidemiological studies on "trans fat," you see all kinds of ridiculous
assumptions and decisions. For example, one measured risk of heart
attacks (CHD), when in fact most people want to know about overall
mortality first and foremost. Why didn't they include this
easy-to-measure, very important statistic? Because high PUFA diets
mean higher rates of cancer, and then mortality goes through the roof,
and they would look like utter failures, because what they wanted to
prove turned out to be totally wrong. So they just do whatever they
have to in order to make themselves look good. Read Thomas J. Moore's
book "Heart Failure" for more specifics on this. But ask yourself, do
I really care what the CHD risk is, if it means living 10 years less
overall? That is the insanity that has taken over the "nutritional
science" field these days. Moore wrote about this over 15 years ago,
and it's only gotten worse, not better.
But if you want to ignore me because you think me "arrogant," only you
will suffer, not me.